zlacker

Thanks.

I was looking for real cases. Theory won't convince the nay-sayers

>>baxtr+(OP)
Well, I know that, not too long ago, employers were asking prospective hires to give them their Facebook and Twitter credentials. I'm talking full login credentials. Other ones asked employees to friend them. I think a lot of HR departments also required employees to friend HR people.

I'm pretty sure that's documented. The courts slammed that drawer shut, pretty hard.

Something that might hit a little closer to home, here: When I was still looking for work, about four or five years ago, a couple of the companies asked me to tell them my HN ID (I'm not sure if I had joined here, back then).

That's one of the reasons that I try to behave well, here. I'm not looking for work, but a lot of y'all are. I try not to propagate fights (although it can be tough), because the person that really gets harmed, is the one attacking me. They are showing their ass, in front of potential employers and teammates, and, even though I might not like them, I don't want to play a part in their not getting a job.

>>baxtr+(OP)
Real cases are everywhere, in front of everyone, every day. For example:

Victims of domestic violence or stalking. Victims of personal vendettas or bigotry from figures in authority. Victims of exploitative employers. These victims have done nothing wrong and they need privacy.

All kinds of people are randomly distributed throughout all professions and strata of society. Politicians, police, lawyers, doctors, posties, real estate agents, chefs. All have great and terrible human representation.

Now think about a person you distrust/dislike the most in your life. Would you want to give them access to everything about you?

The type of person that you like least will eventually have access to your information. If you don't protect your privacy now, who will protect you then?

>>baxtr+(OP)
Anecdotal evidence is the best evidence.

>>antihi+Z4
> Real cases are everywhere, in front of everyone, every day

W He is looming to something that is well written and convincing, something salient. Punchy

Your post is not that. it is difficult to express this so wlel that it is irrefutable

>>Clumsy+9g
I'm suggesting that there doesn't need to be a punchy irrefutable post that wins the argument.

Anyone who interacts with a variety of humans on a regular basis has all of the proof they need that entrusting anonymous others (including corporate entities) with personal information is a bad idea.

The day that humans no longer swindle and scam each other, no longer become jealous or seek revenge, and no longer use power for personal gain at the expense of others is the day we can all freely share everything with each other without worry.

>>antihi+qj1
Beware a thing: in the modern world it's not "everybody knows about everybody" vs "nobody knows nothing about everybody", it's just: very few people know almost anything about everybody, while most do know next to nothing about them.

It's such asymmetry the very issue.